Has UPAC become too big for its britches?
That anti-corruption unit sees MNAs no different than thugs indicates a problem
In the weeks since the shocking arrest of then-Liberal MNA Guy Ouellette by the Unité permanente anticorruption, very little light has been shed on this extraordinary event.
We are still in the dark about why Ouellette, a former cop himself, was apprehended in a sting operation. No charges have been laid against him.
All we know from UPAC, when summoned to explain its actions, is that it is investigating the leak of sensitive information to Le Journal de Montréal about Opération Mâchurer, a long-running probe into political financing involving former premier Jean Charest and former party financier Marc Bibeau.
Ouellette, who has since left the Liberal caucus, denied being the source of the leaks and described himself in the National Assembly as the victim of a “coup.” He also claimed the real reason he was targeted was because he was seeking to have UPAC made more accountable.
Meanwhile, an ally said he was on the verge of blowing the whistle about collusion between UPAC, the Autorité des marchés financiers and a consulting firm in the vetting of Quebec companies to bid on public contracts.
UPAC, for its part, denied those allegations or having any ulterior motives in arresting Ouellette.
Its top brass even expressed confidence about charges eventually being filed.
But the leaks UPAC apparently took such exceptional steps to plug have continued. Just this week, there was more detailed information in Le Journal de Montréal about “sumptuous” fundraisers in 2003 and 2004 hosted by Bibeau and attended by Charest, many ministers at the time and corporate executives.
The whole matter is as clear as mud.
But what is becoming apparent is that UPAC has picked a fight with the political establishment in its treatment of Ouellette — and not just the governing Liberals. It has pitted itself against all parties, all members of the National Assembly, and indeed the institution itself.
Speaker Jacques Chagnon Thursday gave a 45-minute, meticulously researched answer at the start of question period to earlier questions from opposition parties about his view of UPAC’s recent manoeuvres.
It is very dim, indeed. Among the issues raised were whether UPAC violated Ouellette’s parliamentary privilege by seizing his cellphone and computer, whether luring him out of the hallowed grounds of the National Assembly between sittings of the Institutions committee he was presiding over constitute contempt, whether surveillance of MNAs can be considered harassment or intimidation. Chagnon’s conclusion: that UPAC showed a “flagrant” disregard for the work of parliamentarians and “raised doubts about the fragile equilibrium that must exist in the relations between the different branches of the state.”
Concern among MNAs of all stripes is such that the usual partisan finger pointing that ensues over the slightest whiff of corruption or malfeasance has been set aside, at least temporarily, while they defend their essential role in a free and democratic society.
There was a time when UPAC, the one-two punch along with the now-completed Charbonneau Commission against public officials on the take and crooked corporate executives, was respected, if not revered in Quebec. But now it seems like UPAC has got too big for its britches.
Perhaps all these years of investigating dirty politicians has bred a sense of contempt within its ranks for all those in elected office. The depth of that disdain was made clear on Oct. 31, when André Boulanger, the director of operations at UPAC, defended the use of “bait” to lure Ouellette out of parliament and to a location where he was arrested.
Boulanger insisted UPAC employed a strategy often used on drug dealers.
Elected officials are certainly not above the law, but that UPAC sees MNAs as no different than petty thugs indicates a serious and alarming problem. Just as profiling a racial group is bad policing, handling all parliamentarians like rotten apples is a huge mistake — and dangerous.
Chagnon likened the outrageousness of Ouellette’s arrest to the previously unthinkable bombshell a year ago when it was revealed Quebec police forces had spied on journalists.
It’s not that UPAC owes individual MNAs a greater degree of respect or consideration than it does suspects in other types of investigations. But their function as the elected representatives of the people demands a certain amount of deference, just as the role of the free press does.
The separation of powers in a democratic society is the stuff of Political Science 101, but Quebec police seem to be ignorant of it.
While its motives remain murky and its objectives unexplained, it increasingly seems that UPAC’s over-reach has become dangerous — not only for our society, but maybe even for its own credibility.
Clearly, the probe into possible illegal political financing involving a former premier is of huge public interest.
Stalled investigations and leaks that jeopardize them are no doubt frustrating.
But throwing around its weight, picking a fight with legislators and disrespecting important institutions risks undermining its efforts.
If it doesn’t tread carefully, UPAC risks stumbling into the trap of hubris and impunity that has ensnared many of its own targets.